Appeal No. 1999-1924 Page 17
Application No. 08/486,545
the facts of this case are sufficiently different from the
facts present in Schneller that a double patenting rejection
in this application is inappropriate. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 21 to 27 under
the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory (i.e.,
obviousness-type) double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent
No. 5,684,776, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,703,857 and claim
1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,724,331 is reversed and the decision of
the examiner to provisionally reject claims 1 and 21 to 27
under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory double
patenting over claim 1 of copending Application No. 08/482,052
is reversed.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007